Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Anumolu Jaganmohan Rao vs Joint Collector, Krishna, ... on 11 February, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(2)ALD712, 2002(6)ALT293
ORDER V.V.S. Rao, J.
1. The first respondent - Joint Collector in exercise of powers under Section 9 of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act') issued the proceedings bearing Rc. No. D2/2734 of 1999 dated 18-10-2000 (by inadvertence in the writ prayer the date of order is mentioned as 18-1-2000). The effect of the impugned order is that the pattadar pass book issued to the petitioner herein exclusively stood cancelled. These proceedings of the Joint Collector which are quasi-judicial in nature are challenged in this writ petition.
2. In a petition for writ of certiorari challenging a quasi-judicial order, demonstrable grave error apparent on the face of the record alone is a ground tonullify the order. The second respondent filed a revision petition under Section 9 of the Act inter alia contending that the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) Agiripalli and the Village Administrative Officer (VAO) of Pothavarapupadu Village in collusion with the petitioner herein managed to change the revenue records by placing the name of the petitioner instead of second respondent's name. The first respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 18-8-2000. After receiving show-cause notice the petitioner appeared before the first respondent and contended that being a cultivating tenant he is entitled for separate pass book and that MRO after conducting enquiry issued a pass book. It transpired before the first respondent that another pass book was issued to the petitioner without cancelling pattadar pass book already issued in favour of second respondent. Holding that such a procedure is contrary to the rules, the Joint Collector cancelled the pass book issued to the petitioner herein on 10-12-1998.
3. Sri N. Narasimha Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner raised only one submission. According to the learned Counsel Section 6-A of the Act read with Rule 26 (3) of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 ( for short 'the Rules') permits authorities to issue separate pass books to pattadars, tenants, mortgages and occupants of inam lands and therefore the order of the Joint Collector suffered from grave error, in that, the Joint Collector misdirected himself in coming to the conclusion that only one pass book can be granted in respect of same land.
4. Sub-section (1) of Section 6-A of the Act enables owner, pattadar, mortgagee or tenant of any land to apply to the MRO for issue of a pass book and title deed on payment of fee prescribed by the rules. SubSections (3) and (4) of Section 6-A of the Act empowers the Government to prescribe by rules the manner in which tittle deed and pass book may be issued to all owners, pattadars, mortgages or tenants. In exercise of powers under Section 11(1) of the Act vide G.O.Ms.No. 570 dated 8-6-1989 the Governor of Andhra Pradesh has promulgated the rules. Rule 26 of the Rules deals with preparation of pattadar pass book and title deeds taking village as unit. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 26 states that title deed shall be prepared only in respect of pattadar-owners which shall have the same evidentiary value with regard to the title for the purpose of creation of equitable mortgage under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as a registered document registered by a Registrar of Assurances. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 26 on which strong reliance is place reads as under:
The pattadar pass books shall be given to the owner pattadars, tenants, mortgages and occupants of inam lands. The entries in the pass book shall be treated as sufficient evidence to grant loans without insisting on the production of copies of village revenue records, namely: Adangal/Pahani and Account No. 4.
5. The entries in the pass book shall be treated as evidence to grant loans without insisting on production of copies of village revenue records. This is because Sub-rule (2) of Rule 26 by necessary legal fiction clothes the title deed given to pattadar owner with the same evidentiary value as that of a sale deed. This aspect of the matter cannot be ignored while interpreting Sub-rule (3) of Rule 26 of the Rules which states that pattadar pass book shall be given to the owner, pattadars, tenants, mortgages and occupants of inam land. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that 'pattadar-owner and cultivating tenant are entitled to issue separate pattadar pass books and title deeds' would result in subverting the public interest for the reason that in respect of the same land if two pass books are given same land might be mortgaged for raising two loans. That was not the intention of the Legislature under Section 6-A of the Act and Rule 26(3) of the Rules. This is further supported by entries in pattadar pass book itself which is issued in Form-XIV.
6. The pattadar pass book prescribed under Rule 26 of the Rules consists of three parts. Part-I contains ownership details, Part-II contains ownership and cultivation particulars whereas Part-Ill of the same pass book contains particulars of tenant, cultivator and/or mortgagee. If a person is a cultivating tenant, he has only a limited right being entered in Part-III and Rule 26 of the Rules as tenant of the land and no more. The pattadar pass book even it was given at the request of the cultivating tenant, his name cannot be entered in Part-I. Further, Sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 26 clearly state that title deed and pattadar pass book shall be issued to pattadar-owner and not to cultivating tenant. The submission therefore is without any substance and the same is accordingly rejected.
7. A copy of the pattadar pass book issued on 10-12-1998 showing the name of the petitioner just below the name of the second respondent is placed before me. Indeed in first page of Part-I of the pass book there was no entry enabling the MRO or VAO or any Revenue Officer to show the name of the cultivating tenant. Therefore, the issue of pass book in favour of the petitioner is itself illegal. Further, it has been the case of the second respondent before the Joint Collector that the pattadar pass book was issued to him and without cancelling the same another pass book was given to the writ petitioner showing his name as 'enjoyer'. On this also the Joint Collector was right in coming to the conclusion that without cancelling earlier pass book, second pass book cannot be issued. There is no illegality in the order passed by the Joint Collector.
8. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.